4 ms·
It's laid out quiet clearly in the article: "She was unhappy with her barrister and was told he would not be able to continue representing her after she expres
by HyprMusic 4y ago
It's laid out quiet clearly in the article:
"She was unhappy with her barrister and was told he would not be able to continue representing her after she expressed her dissatisfaction.
However, due to industrial action, no other barrister can accept the case. With no replacement found, Judge Peter Rook QC has told Anderson, 40, that she must represent herself."
They're on strike. They will still represent clients but they will not pick up clients of another barrister, presumably because the original barrister will get no or less pay if that happens.
- 2Gkashmiri 4y ago>presumably because the original barrister will get no or less pay if that happens. in india, legal help is FREE if the lawyer is appointed by the court in cases i mentioned so there is no question of getting paid less or more. they are on a government salary so how does it matter?
- flyingfences 4y agoThey are going on strike, demanding that the government salary be higher. If they continued to represent clients, they would be breaking the strike, so their "negotiations" would fail. I agree, it is completely reprehensible.
- PeterisP 4y agoThey are not on government salary. In UK, these are private lawyers who contract some hours of their services to private individuals, companies and also the government, and at this time they are choosing to serve only their private customers as the government does not offer a competitive rate.